Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by delinka 2552 days ago
I'm not following your story.

At the time when 1024-bit numbers used in RSA were 'perfect', it was infeasible to factor the number in a reasonable amount of time. The most straightforward approach is just to iterate over integers from 2 to your target number (call it n), and see if anything divides evenly. Now, you start looking for shortcuts. First, you can test only half the numbers, because the second half will give identical results (e.g. n=20, n/2 = 10; later, n/10 = 2; no need to even test the second half of the range.) Next, it becomes obvious that we only care about odd numbers (if it's divisible by an even number, it's divisible by two); but really, when it comes down do it, we only care about prime factors (for one thing, all non-primes can be decomposed into prime factors; for another, we used prime numbers to get n.) And lastly, for the simple shortcuts, you really only have to get to int(sqrt(n)) + 1 or so. So we've cut down the number of integers we have to divide with.

Did we find the two prime factors of our n in a "reasonable" time? If so, just double the bit length to get a problem twice as hard. Every publicly-known shortcut to factoring large numbers just means you need to make your n larger to increase the workload on an attacker.

The question then becomes: has anyone found a shortcut that will factor any number within a "reasonable" time? We don't know.

As to your career-related comments, I read cluelessness from your boss, and carelessness from the 'other guy' - if OG "would not try to break any encryption scheme," then he's not the person whose advice you want about the strength of cryptosystems. Your boss just lacked critical thinking skills.

2 comments

Doubling the bit length makes the problem much much harder than just twice as hard. The n in the sqrt(n) you mentioned is the number being factored, which grows exponentially with bit length.
Even 15 years ago 1024-bit numbers were not secure.
I'm working on RSA4096 and this is secure minimum up to 2040. Factoring is secure for all times, that's a numeric principle. You only have to make the key/number greater. I'm working for 50 years with prime numbers and now I'm where I was when I was 17. Only a little nearer. What Fermat didn't find and Euler missed (!) is the knowledge that there is no super'algorhythm' for factoring.